I don't think this complaint stands at all. The original question is stated colloquially, not formally, and vos Savant's interpretation of it is the one that's consistent with the question's language and with how game shows work. Even if other interpretations are possible, hers is the one a normal reader would make, and the one the letter-writer apparently intends.
> And that ambiguity has given rise to so much spilled ink (and, by the way, the misconception that statistic professors don't understand probability theory).
I don't think this stands either - the letters quoted don't say anything about the distinction you're making. Unless they're all fictional or selectively edited, a bunch of PhDs really did get the puzzle wrong.
> And that ambiguity has given rise to so much spilled ink (and, by the way, the misconception that statistic professors don't understand probability theory).
I don't think this stands either - the letters quoted don't say anything about the distinction you're making. Unless they're all fictional or selectively edited, a bunch of PhDs really did get the puzzle wrong.